swgfandomcom-20200215-history
User talk:KuroKaze
Galaxy City Pages Now maintained as: SWG Wiki talk:Galaxy Planet stub Template --KuroKaze 05:18, 29 Aug 2005 (CEST); Or is it? Notes to self Changes to city names on ahazi sould use the move link at top of respective article rather than creating new city article (to prevent old name from littering the new category) --BUAHAHA i didn't sign this one... noone touch it Tip And a final tip: you can link to categories, images, and other weird namespaces by typing Category:Stubs or Image:City icon sm.png. That'll keep the wiki from putting a page in the category listed or inserting the image. --Influenza 09:46, 28 Aug 2005 (CEST) :I've been using namespace:... for a few hours already, Thanks for thinking of me though --KuroKaze 10:31, 28 Aug 2005 (CEST); Talk pages Would you mind not rearranging talk pages that already have discussions on them? I can't follow anything that's been said with the Ahazi Player Cities thing because every time I make a comment half of it gets moved somewhere else, and the reply ends up god knows where. This is especially important for pages like SWG Wiki talk:Site Templates that have a long history of discussion. I know we don't have an official policy on Talk page etiquette, but generally you should put new topics at the bottom with a new heading, and put your replies indented beneath the *full* comment you're replying to. Please don't break up comments, and pretty please don't move parts of comments around a page. If you're having trouble keeping track of what comments have been added, well, use the History and Diff functions. --Influenza 21:54, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST) ---- Re: rearanging :* What about adding navigation (sub)headings? ::--KuroKaze 22:35, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::* adding some RIGHT NOW (but they are in the same order as original) :::--KuroKaze 01:00, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); Re: Breaking up comments :* Bulleting paragraphs and signing them with the same timestamps allows seperate issues to be addressed individually. ::--KuroKaze 22:35, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::* SO guilty of breaking someone's continuity/context in a discussion. I'll try to simply make multiple replies, possibly in subheadings for thread branches. This entire section will stay in the same order for continuity though :::--KuroKaze 01:00, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); Re: New Heading at bottom :* You yourself said the History/Diff functions will work. Are you implying there is a chonological layout order for talk pages? ::--KuroKaze 22:35, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::* Diff function should work to see where these lines were added. :::--KuroKaze 01:00, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); Signing :* I'm signing all points/paragraphs of a topic to branch. This allows issues to branch. When a branch gets long enough, it can be archived, moved into a new ro subheading heading for navigation ::--KuroKaze 22:35, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::* OWW! MY DYSGRAPHIA! -- i said "branch" quite a few times there. What i meant to say was, signing each thought/concept/in some cases sentence/statement seperately allows replies specific to this issue. :::--KuroKaze 23:03, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::* The reason signature indented at same level is post, is so that the reply bullets are visually below the person's name to whom the reply is being made. :::--KuroKaze 01:03, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::* See: Talk Page Example :::--KuroKaze 01:56, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); Molesting people's layout ::* I owe an apology there. I went away for a couple days for work and there was a big long section with very many points, many of them complaints/concerns about WoW... I did something huge, and ugly. Next time i do such a thing. THE ENTIRE thread will be copied verbatum to a sandbox, made the primary heading, and the revised copy will be worked on below. :::--KuroKaze 23:03, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); :::* I feel a need to clone the version (via history) immediately prior to my terrible act into a sandbox. The original version, context, etc. Will be preserved. My chnaged version will not be pushed to live until a 60% majority of the persons involved sign off on the revised layout. A link to the sandbox (containing the old version, as well as revision) will be placed above the new version when it goes live. ::::--KuroKaze 23:03, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::::* RETRACTION: no... nah, forget that - i'd rather borrow/quote this discussion (with permission) and demonstrate how it COULD be formatted (and easier to read). Sorry i called WoW wiki off topic. it was just hard for me to follow something going on off-site. i already have much to deal with RL and work. ::::--KuroKaze 00:35, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); Moving content from talk pages :* I promise i will refrain from this in the future (except for archiving extremely long threads). Where possible i will use links. :: --KuroKaze 22:35, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST); Continuation ::::Section: ''These comments were all placed at the bottom, first entry was indented at same level as my branched replies. :::::--KuroKaze 01:00, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); :* Ok, I've thought this over a little more, and did a little research on how Wikipedia handles this stuff. I suppose reorganizing things the way you do, by placing bullets to break up individual points, is fine when you do it with brand-new comments that don't have a discussion history to them. It's just when existing conversations get rearranged that things get confusing. I know you're just trying to make things easier for everyone, but you in fact make things harder for those involved in a conversation when you rearrange it out of nowhere :). :: I realize my big essays aren't easy to follow or reply to, so I'll work on breaking my points up more naturally. I would prefer, though, that you reply with multiple sections like you did here whenever someone posts a big block of text, rather than break up their comment like you did on some of the Ahazi City pages. That way you aren't modifying what they said, but you're still creating a much easier framework for reply. :: I suppose that's all. Looks like we all have something to improve on :). ::--Influenza 22:58, 14 Sep 2005 (CEST) ::* I want to reiterate the point that these discussions are only useful when the authors believe that the ideas expressed are not being altered by others. To find your comments changed, moved around, delegated to "sandbox" pages, or whatever, discourages participation in those discussions. I find it discouraging to have to spend half an hour or more going through all my current discussions in order to find out if anything was changed and to then spend significant amounts of time determining how to repair those items so that they express the point of view that was intended (and that which future posts may have built on). Even simple things like indentation changes and bulleting cause the history tool to report large differences in the text which need to be gone through, phrase by phrase. :::--SwordMage 05:17, 15 Sep 2005 (CEST) :::* sword: uhm... right, i might get around to making a HowTo page for making talk pages thread-friendly & easy to read, (i'm retracting using a sandbox for a talk page re-working) ::::--KuroKaze 00:35, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); ::*flu: okay - i won't do any more surgery to seperate points in "essays" and i'll reply as i did just now when i come across such multi-posts next time. Though, will probably still do formatting/indenting touch ups and track down and insert missing signatures/timestamps. makes it easier to spot each entries/authors. :::--KuroKaze 00:35, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST); Disaster recovery * My computer exploded. I've spent the past week rebuilding it. Wiki activity was the last thing on my mind. :--Kurokaze 21:32, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST); : Aha, so that's where you disappeared to. Welcome back! --Influenza 22:16, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST) Testing new sig * hey, It's a preference i'm allowed to set (saw it was in there 'cause i lost password from the terrible crash) so it's set. :--Sarah (kuro) 21:35, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST); Sith-Tastic I've moved this page to User:KuroKaze/Sith-Tastic, as it's not really part of the game. Skinmeister 13:11, 18 April 2007 (CEST)